About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 2
MSNBCW 2
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
and challenges you confront. in this job, i have tried to be as accessible as i can to the pentagon press corps to engage regularly with reporters and to encourage other senior officials in the department to do the same. it is an especially important time to communicate our vision and our priorities as a department. as i have said time and time again over this past year, i believe that we are at a strategic turning point. after more than a decade of war, the longest extended period of conflict in the history of the united states. at the beginning of 2012, president obama and the military and civilian leaders of the department came together to publicly release a new defense strategy. it was designed to help the military affectively navigate this turning point and prepare for the future. under that strategy, our goal was to reshape the force of the 21st century. to try to meet the new security challenges that we are confronted in this world and try to help the country at the same time reduce the deficits which are confronting. we were handed a number and the budget control act to reduce the defen
for weapon and mean. when he saw the pentagon estimate that the red army could overrun europe in two weeks, he wrote in the margin, i doubt. it took us three months just to take this on. when the spending request came in, ike would say i know those boys down at the pentagon. ike believed the real national security came from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk. he controlled government spending and package. his famous speech warning against military-industrial complex came at the end of his presidency but, in fact, he been working on it all a long. mostly behind the scenes. heaven help us, he liked to say, that we'll get a president who knows less about the military than i do. this approach to the military was not just about the economy. in the berlin crisis in 58-59 and in early crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953, 54, the almost straight, the suez crisis in 1956, eisenhower was playing a bigger game for higher stakes. a west point cadet and a young army officer, ike had been a great poker player. indeed, he was so good that he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from his
he saw the pentagon's estimate, he wrote in the margin, i doubt it, it took us three months just to take sicily. when the spending requests came in, he said, i know the boys at the pentagon. he believed real national security was from a sound economy. he was a deficit hawk, boy, we could use him today, who controlled government spending and taxes. the famous speech warning against the industrial complex was at the end of the presidency, but worked on it all along behind the scenes. heaven help us he liked to say when we get a president who knows less about the military than i do. it was not about the economy or saving money. in the berlin crisis and earlier crisis with korea and vietnam in 1953 over the strait in 1954-55 and 1958 in the suez crisis in 1956, he was planning a bigger gain for higher stakes. west point cadet and young army officer, ike was a great poker player, and, indeed, so good, he had to give it up. he was taking too much money from the fellow officers hurting his career. he switched to bridge, but he never forgot how to bluff. the soviets, he bluffed with nucl
security posture. interagency teams give particular scrutiny to high threat posed. the pentagon agreed to dispatch additional marines to post around the world. we asked congress for funds to hire new diplomatic security personnel. we're updating our diplomat procedures to increase the number of experienced and well- trained staffs serving at those posts. tom and i will be discussing all this work and more with congress tomorrow. for now, let me make one other point. i have been a proud member of the foreign service for more than 30 years. i've had the honor of serving as a chief of mission overseas. i know that diplomacy by its very nature must sometimes be practiced in dangerous places. chris stevens understood that our diplomats may not work in bunkers and do their jobs. it is important to recognize that our colleagues in the bureau's of diplomatic security at home and abroad did it right countless times a day for years on end. but we have learned some very hard and painful lessons benghazi. we're already acting on them. we have to do more to constantly improve, reduce the risks that
exhibits a skepticism, who would be at the helm of the pentagon. >> but at this point obama is going to look really weak if he doesn't own hagel. and he's been so silent. i really just don't understand why because he has political capital right now, he should use it, but he's not coming out to defend these candidates who are putting themselves on the line for him. >> he came out to defend susan rice strongly but that didn't necessarily turn the tide. aaron, i'm curious if you think this ends up being a test case for how, for where we draw the boundaries of what is acceptable or unacceptable outside the sort of boundaries of what we will allow if hagel's nomination is sunk or are the stakes not that high? >> well, i think they are high for the administration because i worked for half a dozen secretaries of state. what i've seen over the last three weeks in washington is virtually unprecedented. this is the second punitive nominee, i mean, there hasn't even been a formal announcement of a nomination. the first was susan rice. and now she was preemptively basically forced to withdraw. a
of the show and they just kind of, we got calls from people from the pentagon and from politicians. both shows were done and conceived without cooperation and without any purported. connection to how they actually run. it was never part of the promises. i've attempted some shows that have not seen the light of day with cooperation of government agencies. i worked for a long time on a show with the f.b.i. and also with nasa, negotiate of which probably not unco--- probably not coins dently came to fruition. but these shows "homeland" -- "24" made up it's own organization c.. the u. to avoid it and with "homeland" it was a step towards reality so it does elude to the cia. but -- >> our relationship with the military was interesting because obviously these agencies want to keep arm's length. and once they became fans -- i think it was that simple, they just enjoyed it and felt this is portraying when we did portray a general or soldier, the military became cooperative. so we had a pentagon lie ace son. it got to the point we said we need a couple of f-16s they said sure. it got great. a lot of pr
cooperation of kathryn bigelow and other administration, received from the white house and the pentagon, documented in the e-mails that have come out, do you think that maybe unmaliced the film a little bit or compromised the independence. >> the obama administration comes off, if anything, poorly with this. the one scene with the president his view on torture comes off prissy and only appears in the cameo in the background in a "60 minutes" interview. >> you have written there's a theory that screen writer fell in love with his cia sources and embraced their perspective wholeheartedly. explain. >> well, i mean from what i gather, i think that's true. and in a peculiar way, this is sort of a feminist movie in that he put a lot of their feelings into the character of this woman who actually, whose role in the story is to drive the men to be more decisive, to be, if you will, more macho, take a chance, take risks, take this sfrmg.o.b down and not do this probability stuff. >> i'm going to make a prediction, this film is going to do very well given the avalanche of publicity even before it
-to-know in the pentagon and cia and certainly the white house. so i just felt a personal responsibility to keep it close, but that meant that i was basically, you know, having to consult with myself, to be honest. >> keeping this secret also meant going on about the business of presidency, touring that awful storm damage in alabama while knowing at athat very moment u.s. navy s.e.a.l.s were already the on the move halfway around the world. you had to go to tuscaloosa? >> yes. >> you had to go have fun at the correspondents dinner? >> yes. >> seth meyers makes a joke about osama bin laden. >> did you know that every day from 4:00 to 5:00 he hosts a show on c-span? >> how do you keep an even keel, even when we look back on the videotape of that night, there's no real depiction there's something afoot? >> you know, when i go down to tuscaloosa, i'm very much present there, because the tragedy and the devastation that had happened to the folks there, i think, consumed all my attention. so that wasn't difficult to focus on. the correspondents dinner was a different story. you know, that a little bit of actin
saying that the movie is not accurate. the cia, pentagon and senators have all been critical of scene that show hard interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists. they say information gained by torture did not lead to the capture and killing of bin laden. >> it's official now. mickey mouse is darth vader's boss. the deal is done. disney paid $4 billion in cash and stocks for the production company. sky walker sound, special effects company, industrial light and magic as well as video game maker lucas arts. >> anyone who loves to spend time at san francisco -- will want to make a visit. the museum is moving to pier15. the last day is going to be in it's current location on lion street will be january 2nd. it does as you may imagine take a lot of time to relocate so many exhibits so it'll not reopen in its new home until april 17th. >>> and it's already a happy holiday season for the oakland zoo, a donor gave them a million dollars. there are no restrictions on it. zoo executives call it is greatist gift they have ever received. it's especially welcome after last month's election
. by contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of the pentagon's. secretary gates has spoken about this and strongly urged the congress to address that imbalance. we have not yet. admiral mullen pointed out, the more diplomacy is cut, the more lives are lost. we have to make certain that we are not penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to supporting americas vital overseas interests. adequately funding foreign-policy initiatives is not spending, but investing in our long-term security, and more often or not, it saves far more expensive expenditures in dollars and lives in the conflicts that we fail to see or avoid. we need to invest in america's long-term interest in order to do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. this report makes that crystal clear. since 1985, i have had the privilege of making official journeys to one trouble spot or another. i have met a lot of our men and women in the foreign services. we sat and talked about the work they do and the lives that they lead. they spent years learning the languages of the country so they can be on the fro
they go to washington, it is not an act of philanthropic on the pentagon -- and at the plant for be on the pentagon fell apart -- it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollar rise, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why is that? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism was sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. well, paul volcker -- been named may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. volcker's paper, which are when i read a few year
knocked himself out. >> did the pentagon have review? >> no, didn't have fop once i'm retired from active due any i don't have to submit it to the pentagon unless i use classified information. so i avoided using any classified information but a lot of stuff was declassified right after the war. a lot of stuff was a matter of public record. so i had a great deal of material. the best thing i had was this, any war i ever fought most of instructions were sent by message back and forth. so you have hard copy record of every decision made. because of where we are today most of the orders and instructions are seventh back and forth by secured telephone. it became apparent that we're not going have a record of the decisions made unless we have a record ourselves. any time i had a conversation i wrote down what i said and what is being said to me. i had someone in there who would write down every time i made a decision and he would log it into a private journal that we kept of every decision that was happening during the war. if it had not been through that the book would not be written. >> where
head no matter who the nominee is for secretary of defense will be the pentagon budget. can the military survive the spending cuts as they stand the fiscal cliff? >> if the fiscal cliff goes into -- goes into effect as of january -- initial january 2, it will be in effect. if that goes into effect on that day there will be serious cuts that will be mandated and affect the national security and it is -- exactly the wrong thing to be doing. as i indicated before, there are cuts that can be made in the defense budget. they have to be managed properly and not simply across board-type of arbitrary slashing of that budget. i think that will endanger our security and we can make further cuts. it has to be done prudently and with discussion and wisdom. i don't think that's the congress should take or wants to take. unfortunately, there aren't enough people up there willing to back away and do the right thing under the circumstances. yes, it will be a hardship and one this country should not have to endure. >> all right. thank you, mr. secretary. great to see and you appreciate your
to washington, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollar rise, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why is that? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism was sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. well, paul volcker -- been named may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. whener's paper, which are i read a few years ago, i thought it was the most remarkable document ever to emerge from washington in the last few years. looking at the emerging eco
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)